Prime v. Western & Southern Life Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that privately owned dogs were effects subject to the protections of the Fourth Amendment but officers’ actions of shooting and killing the dog were objectively reasonable
• holding that, regarding a warrantless seizure, “[t]he reasonableness calculus is objective in nature; it does not turn upon the subjective intent of the officer”
• holding that claims are \inextricably intertwined\ where the reso- lution of one claim necessarily resolves the other claim
• recognizing that holding that killing of dog was not unreasonable seizure does not mean that the officer’s response was the best one possible
• holding that privately owned dogs were effects subject to the protections of the Fourth Amendment but officers’ actions of shooting and killing the dog were objectively reasonable
• holding that dogs are considered personal property or “effects” under the Fourth Amendment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).